If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I've already stated that, if you didn't catch it. Anything above 128 for the alpha is what you need. Having it as a solid black, however, is the best way. Adding a bunch of noise for the transparency (make the opacity of each pixel varied for the watermark) makes removing the watermark much more difficult. Also, save your watermarked image as as JPG as JPG changes the colors of pixels some to enhance compression (it's a lossy compression). The lower the quality, the harder it is to remove the water mark as you'd also have to reverse the JPG algorithm and apply the algorithm to remove the watermark. So, watermark your image and JPG it.

Why not just copy the image from the browser cache - that way you get the original image rather than a screen copy of it. Web browsers always copy the images to your computer before they display them on the web page - that's why watermarking is the only method that has even the remotest chance of working.

In my oppinion one must not care too much about the fact that someone else could stealing the pictures or whichever from a web page. After all, to do what with them?

Let me tell you a story to understand my point of view.

I live in a country whose industry is far from reaching the top level of the big developed countries. Some time a go, my uncle, who is an engineer, was invited in Japan to visit one of the most modern factory in the world (it doesn't matter the profile), where the hosts have shown him everything, including their prototypes ready to be launch on the market. Intrigued, my uncled asked the Japaneese: "Aren't you worry that I might steal your ideeas and build the items on my factory?" And they replied: "Nope. You have not in Romania the necessary technology to do that. And even if you would have, we are sure that we are able to launch the product faster than you, at a lower cost."

See what I mean? I guess that most of the time the effort applied in trying to protect something on the Web is bad-ballanced. The time spent for this could have been used for a better an more profitable activity. It does not worth. I guess so.

Just look at how much effort the most popular professional sites take to protect the images that they use and you soon get an idea of what is worth doing and what is not worth doing. Of course if you steal their images thay'll take you to court and sue the legs off of you.